What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckels many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[Bust Nak]

I take it

just "life" itself

is just an idea or a guess.

I would call it a scientific prediction, in the sense that "if my calculations are correct then..."

I can't answer yes, because men make errors in their checking systems, and their judgment, and their understanding, and their theories...
For example, there is evidence that some scientists have questioned the theory of gravity, and this article shows, there is still a question mark against it.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/

Moreover, just because I have a theory, does not mean my theory is right.
Just because species have similar materials and makeup, does not mean we evolved, according to the theory of evolution.

Well, the evidence for evolution goes a lot further than spotting species have similar materials and makeup. Just as gravity goes a lot further than dropping different weighted balls off the leaning tower of Pisa. But fundamentally, you are not wrong, which is why I kept asking you what you meant by "prove." Nothing in science is ever proven in the strictest sense of the word. All of science is tentative, theory exists as working models awaiting further corrections. You might have heard the phrase "proof is for alcohol and mathematics."

Why dismiss creation?

Because it is unscientific. Methodological naturalism is the essence of science. Recall the passage you and I both quoted, so beautifully stated by Professor Richard Lewontin:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

How can it be ruled out, when it fits.
To my mind, that's leaning toward a preferred explanation.

None of that matters because it invokes the supernatural. It ruled itself out by stepping outside of material explanations. It's not science no matter how well you think it explain things.

Think of it another way, the day Creationism become eligible for scientific consideration, is the day when God allows himself to be studied under the microscope, as we scrutinise the creatures that swarm in a drop of water.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 288 by Bust Nak]

You seem to love Professor Richard Lewontin's words.

Thanks though.
I quite appropriate your honesty, and I think, at least from my perspective, we agree, even though we disagree on beliefs.

You have clearly answered my questions.
If there are any questions you feel I have not answered clearly, feel free to ask.

[Kenisaw]

We get back to basics:

1. Religion has never falsified science.
2. Science has repeatedly falsified the bible.

I have known some science to agree with scriptures.
Could you give me examples where

Science has repeatedly falsified the bible.

except in the area of evolution?

Let's start with Genesis 1. It claims that plants came before the Sun, that the sky was water at the top, calls the moon a light source, and that the iron laden Earth came before the stars that make iron during supernovae events. Falsified claims of the Bible...

Hmm, .. just like a computer game-world programmer, he can create an earth, plants, jungles, forests and no sun or water anywhere in sight, and then to finish it all up throw in the sun, moon and stars.

Uh, sure. You run with that. Student asked for falsified claims, I gave him multiple ones in just the first chapter of the first book. Then you come back at me with an unproven god creature and claim that this unproven god creature created everything (which is also, by the way, unproven).

I don't think Student wants your kind of help...

Stars that make iron during supernovae events, really? How many samples have been taken from supernova events?

Plenty. Bet you don't know how though...let's see you put on your research shoes and figure it out.

BB-theory? How many Big-bangs have there been observed so far?

One.

First you will need "nothing" with a quantum speck of whatever in it, and a Higgs boson to react on the quantum speck of whatever as soon as it Big-bangs. Then, have other scientists verify this event so it could be considered a theory.
problem is that if you have a quantum speck in "nothing", it is no longer nothing, instead it is space, and we know space is not nothing because there are an awful lot of "things" in space.

Fascinating misunderstanding of physics and quantum mechanics you have there. Is this where you start talking about 666CERN?

I can observe a car on the highway, even check out its engine and document how it all works, but that doesn't give me the right to claim it evolved from some primordial gasses millions and billions of years ago, right? I have to observe at least ONE thing that big-bangs and expands and evolves something meaningful, no?

Since there is no evidence that any car ever evolved from primordial gasses a long time ago, I doubt you will see anyone make such a claim. Since there IS evidence for the Big Bang (gravity waves, CMB, etc), that's an entirely different phenomena than your speculative car story, isn't it. Which is why your car example is utterly useless...

You know, so I can say: "See, that's how the universe evolved, from a speck like that"

I will at least give you credit for the courage to talk about something that you have absolutely no understanding of. It doesn't make for a great conversation, but at least you are willing to try.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 272 by Bust Nak]

It's still not clear what it is you are disagreeing with in the passages you quote. Why don't you think they offer a sufficient explanation of the root of evolution?

What do you understand the root to be?

Same again here, you've bolded some text, that doesn't tell me why you disagree with them.

Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.
Most mutations are damaging or harmful.
Few mutations are neutral which is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

So most mutations are damaging or harmful. Which means that there are some that aren't. "Most" is not "all", Student. Here's the math on mutations: Each person receives about 60 mutations from their parents when they are conceived. That's not a lot when you think about the 3 billion positions in the human genome, and since each position is a pair that means there are 6 billion places a mutation could occur. So 60 places in 6 billion is not a lot.

Except there are 7 billion people on the planet. Add up those 60 that each person has and suddenly you are talking about a dozen mutations AT EACH SITE OF THE GENOME in each generation. That's a lot of mutations. That doesn't count the mutations that were so lethal that a human died in utero and wasn't even born.

Never in a zillion years.

We don't need a zillion years to get a zillion mutations...

Mutations can never be responsible for the complexity of life.
Experiments on species of flies and cattle did not produce birds.
They produced mutant sick flies, mutant dead flies, and mutant living flies.
Same with the cattle.
Variation of a trait that is already there, is not evidence leading to imagined LUCA.
Evidence of a mutant bird man would be not nice, but acceptable.
Do it in a lab, and present the evidence to the public.

No Mutations to new species, or complex systems - No Branch

No, not in 100 years of research. But there is no evidence anywhere that evolution has ever worked that fast. To expect to see it happen live in just one human lifetime is an impossible standard. Evolution doesn't work that fast, so saying a fly didn't turn into a bird is NOT an argument because everyone that knows anything about evolution would tell you that isn't going to happen. Of course your creationist websites whine about it, which you parroted here in your post, but as I said everyone that knows anything doesn't make such a basic mistake...

You've been told all this before by the way, so I find it dishonest of you to make claims about it with Bust Nak when I've already shown you the errors of your understanding...

could a single celled organism evolve to multi-cellular organism.

If no paint exists, would you expect to see painted houses?

If paint is made from all the ingredients on Earth, then we can certainly say paint is chemically possible...

You claim there is a LUCA. Show me it.
You claim mutations are responsible for evolution of new species. Show me it.

You can see the genetic remains of the LUCA in the genomes of all living things.

You can see the evolution of species into new ones in the fossil record, AND in the genomes of all living things...

[Kenisaw]

So, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you agreeing that a branch of flies can only produce species of flies?

Yes. Evolution can only ever produce variations of the parent branches, a branch of flies can only produce variations of flies.

Now we might name the new variations something else other than flies, but a name is just that, a name. Fundamentally they are still flies.

So if evolution starts, say, with a species of bacteria, how can it produce any other species other than bacteria?

If evolution started with bacteria, then it CANNOT produce anything thing other than more variations of bacteria.

Which is why we can safely conclude that evolution didn't start with bacteria, because there are lots more species besides bacteria.

Thanks
Is it guessed that evolution started with Archaea?
Then there is no evidence, nor observed experiment that proves this is true. Correct?

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 291 by Kenisaw]

You can see the genetic remains of the LUCA in the genomes of all living things.

You can see the evolution of species into new ones in the fossil record, AND in the genomes of all living things...

Of course you can.
In your mind.

So it's not just the Christians who use their minds to see, invisible things.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 292 by Kenisaw]

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

So would you provide that evidence for me please.
Since I haven't come across it.

[Bust Nak]

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

Are we going to get technical here? A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a different species sure, but it will never evolve into a separate genus, family, order. It can never become a chordate no matter how long you give it, it might however evolve to a gill breathing swimmer that looks superficially like a chordate, but it would still be a bacterium, in the domain of bacteria; it can never be a fish, fishes are nested in the domain of Eukaryote.

The limit of evolution is that it must form a nested hierarchy. A tree splits at the leaf nodes, it can only form new branches at the tip of a parent branch; evolution cannot go back to the body of a branch and spout a new branch from the middle.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 291 by Kenisaw]

You can see the genetic remains of the LUCA in the genomes of all living things.

You can see the evolution of species into new ones in the fossil record, AND in the genomes of all living things...

Of course you can.
In your mind.

So it's not just the Christians who use their minds to see, invisible things.

Fossils and sequenced genomes are invisible? That's a fascinating reply. I have material evidence, Student. You can view them and study them and draw your own conclusions, but the empirical data is very real.

By the way, in case it was never mentioned, have you noticed that you can't prove god by disproving evolution? Most believers don't seem to realize this, and I was just curious if you had...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 292 by Kenisaw]

Pardon me Busk, but I must make a clarification to your post that Student responded to. There is no known limit on what one species of animal could evolve into given enough time and mutations. A type of Bacterium could eventually evolve into a completely different species which could continue to evolve into a separate genus, family, order, etc. It could conceivably become a chordate in the distant future for example. Life uses 4 basic building blocks in genomes, so there is no known limit on what each life form could evolve into...

So would you provide that evidence for me please.
Since I haven't come across it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... onvergence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent